Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think #1, while ugly, is probably less ugly than the others, although I
> guess it means even more work if the underlying type of the column is
> changed.
Oy, I hadn't thought of that. [ considers... ] I *think* that it'll
work without special code, because ALTER COLUMN TYPE drops and recreates
the constraints, but definitely something to test. Thanks for the
reminder.
> Is there any reason to think that in the future we might need more such
> things for some constraints?
Um ... more such which, exactly? And do you have something in mind if
the answer is "yes"?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
